To me, this comes back to a crucial choice - an issue upon which Mr Sellick remains silent.
The crux of the matter ultimately, is where the line is drawn, or in this case, what measures as a society would Mr Sellick advocate?

In most things, I tend to regard criticism as somewhat weak if it is not accompanied by constructive suggestions to remedy the problem, if indeed there is a problem.

So, Sellick argues it's bad that there are abortions and that euthanasia exists. What precisely does he propose?

There's the real question, and on that he remains silent. Perhaps because he knows that were he to advocate a state which denies abortions as well as euthanasia (which we already have, to a large extent) he is in fact, robbing people of choices, and would be seen as a move to institute a state based on religious values over practical. It does indeed resemble a move toward theocracy.

Because that's what human rights are all about, though many hard-headed Christians refuse to countenance this, preferring to view it through the prism of a god they accept, while the rest of us do not.

The moment you understand this very simple concept, the issue of human rights becomes easily understandable. I can understand some people muddying the water on issues of abortion, even though I don't agree a fetus can be seen as a person. I can understand this muddying because they see it as two competing choices.

But euthanasia? Frankly, efforts to oppose voluntary euthanasia regardless of the individual circumstances really do disgust me.

Pelican, I don't think there are many people who are 'pro-abortion', but they do believe in a woman's right to choose and not be dictated to or controlled by other people's beliefs. I'm sure anyone who has considered or had an abortion would much rather have not had an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Opposing the death penalty and supporting voluntary euthanasia sit comfortably with the pro-choice stance, as it is all about being able to make decisions about your own body and not having the right to make life and death decisions about another person

Peter you are mixing up euthanasia and suicide.
Euthanasia is a special form of suicide that happens when death is near and inevitable.

The woman in your story committed suicide. She was not terminally ill and suffering unbearably. Even if Nischke's book was not available she may have done it. Suicide is not a new phenomenon. You don't need to be Einstein to figure it out. Romans were falling on their swords millennia ago.

Euthanasia is what happens when you are dying and suffering unbearably. It gives you the chance at dignified exit.

Please stop muddying the debate.

I see the religious vilififiers are hard at work... from their secular pulpits 6 feet above contradiction... bearing down at the believers with a stern mocking look....

"More Christian drivel"

"Sanctimonious Rubbish"

"You and your religious kind" (err meaning..sub humans?)

"A load of drivel"

Well.. I hope none of those from who's mouths pour this oozing puss like vitriol will have any problem with a reasoned argument about particular theological/political/historical issues concerning other faiths.

Pericles.. where are you? I'd say this was a WHACK-A-CHRISTIAN thread par excellence thus far..wouldnt you?

Of course..I don't hold my breath that you would be in the slightest way consistent and unhypocritical and target these big mouths with small minds (?) for their vicious hatred and loathing and rabble rousing agaisnt Christian belief....would you?

But.. of course when secularists deliberately resort to open mockery and actual ridicule of a person claiming Christianity ....welll...that's quite ok isn't it?

Now.. there might be a lesson here. If the guilty parties above, simply criticized Sells argument.. by showing the social and political implications withOUT the ridicule and mockery...would they be guilty of "rabble rousing and inciting fear, hatred and loathing"?

Hardly.. but that's how your mind seems to work. All these persons are doing here, is showing how shallow they are by resorting to such shabby tactics as ridicule and mockery. But that's pretty much it.

It's on them... so you blokes who wish your views to have any acceptance by those other than they who share your mocking mindset.... why not limit your comments to reason, argument and implication?

There's a good boy(s)

Candide
I take your point. I was more thinking in terms of the various elements raised in this discussion - abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment etc.

As you rightly say no-one is pro-abortion as such. :)

polycarp,

plenty of people have addressed the pseudo-substance of sellick's previous thousand articles. at this point, quick disgusted dismissal is the only reasonable response.